alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 2:11-cv-00393-EAS-TPK Doc #: 37 Filed: 09/28/12 Page: 1 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00393-EAS-TPK Doc #: 37 Filed: 09/28/12 Page: 2 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00393-EAS-TPK Doc #: 37 Filed: 09/28/12 Page: 3 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00393-EAS-TPK Doc #: 37 Filed: 09/28/12 Page: 4 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00393-EAS-TPK Doc #: 37 Filed: 09/28/12 Page: 5 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00393-EAS-TPK Doc #: 37 Filed: 09/28/12 Page: 6 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00393-EAS-TPK Doc #: 37 Filed: 09/28/12 Page: 7 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00393-EAS-TPK Doc #: 37 Filed: 09/28/12 Page: 8 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00393-EAS-TPK Doc #: 37 Filed: 09/28/12 Page: 9 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00393-EAS-TPK Doc #: 37 Filed: 09/28/12 Page: 10 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-07T16:22:38-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Exhibit 13.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT of 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Anpulo Food Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A, Amendment No. 1, for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), Wenping Luo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.
The Annual Report, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 By:
/s/ Wenping LuoWenping LuoPrincipal Executive Officer
 
 
 Dated: July 1, 2016
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit
10.26







BIOCRYST
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

2425 KILDAIRE FARM ROAD, SUITE
106 
CARY, NC 27518

919-859-7908 919-859-1314 FAX



2190 PARKWAY LAKE DRIVE

BIRMINGHAM. AL 35244

205-444-4648 205-444-4640 FAX



www.biocryst.com



May 21, 2008



Mr. David McCullough

101 Salford Ct.

Cary, NC 27512



Dear David,



I would like to present you with this retention bonus program in recognition of the outstanding and
valuable contributions you have made to BioCryst Pharmaceuticals and will continue to make in the
future. The Compensation Committee has reviewed this program and has approved offering it to you.
The retention bonus will be extended and paid to you as long as you remain an active employee with
the company through December 31, 2009.



You will be provided with the following retention bonus;




	 	•	 	80% of your 4/1/08 annual base salary, plus;
	 
	 	•	 	The equivalent of 20% of your 4/1/08 annual base salary in Restricted Stock
Awards (14,439 shares common stock).





As a section 16 Officer, extending this retention bonus to you will be viewed as material and will
require an 8-k disclosure. In the event of a Change of Control, prior to December 31, 2009, you
will be eligible to receive the benefits as noted above.



David, on
a separate matter, we will amend your current Employment Agreement,
and remove those
sentences within section 4b which references your severance payments being terminated as of the
date that you commence employment with another employer. We will amend and resign your employment
contract to reflect these changes.



Our future success as a company is directly related to your important contributions and ongoing
leadership. Once again, thank you for your continued support and help in making BioCryst a
financial success.



Sincerely,




	 	 	 
	/s/ Jon Stonehouse
 

Jon Stonehouse

	 	 
	CEO and President 
	 	 
	BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

 

**Certification**

 

In connection with the annual report of Lentuo International Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officer’s knowledge:

 

(1)         the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)         the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: April 30, 2012

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Jing Yang           |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Jing Yang               |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

1

----
# CA2008122DE.01000101.xml

| 20.5.2008 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 122/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2008

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 122/1

---

RESERVELISTE

   (1)

RESERVELISTE

(1

ALLGEMEINES AUSWAHLVERFAHREN EPSO/AD/68/06

ALLGEMEINES AUSWAHLVERFAHREN

VERWALTUNGSRÄTE IM SPRACHENBEREICH

VERWALTUNGSRÄTE IM SPRACHENBEREICH

(Besoldungsgruppe AD 7)

(KONFERENZDOLMETSCHERINNEN UND KONFERENZDOLMETSCHER)

KONFERENZDOLMETSCHERINNEN UND KONFERENZDOLMETSCHER

FÜR DIE DEUTSCHE SPRACHE

FÜR DIE DEUTSCHE SPRACHE

(2008/C 122 A/01)

Option 1

| AHRENS | Birgit |
| --- | --- |
| HAASE | Bianca |
| MANGELS | Anja |
| NIEDERPRÜM | Monika |

AHRENS

Birgit

HAASE

Bianca

MANGELS

Anja

NIEDERPRÜM

Monika

Option 2

KEINE ERFOLGREICHEN TEILNEHMER

Die Reserveliste gilt bis zum 31.12.2009. Ihre Geltungsdauer kann verlängert werden.

31.12.2009

---

(1)  Auf ausdrücklichen Wunsch einer erfolgreichen Prüfungsteilnehmerin oder eines erfolgreichen Prüfungsteilnehmers wird ihr bzw. sein Name nicht veröffentlicht.

1

---
No. 55385.

#### George A. Terzis *v.*United States,

protest 165787-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

An examination of the record disclosing no reason which would justify disturbing the action of the collector, the protest was dismissed.
# C_2008086EN.01003201.xml

| 5.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/32

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.4942 — Nokia/Navteq)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 86/02)

On 28 March 2008, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4942 — Nokia/Navteq, to the following address:

| Commission of the European Communities |
| --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70 |
| B-1000 Brussels |

Commission of the European Communities

Competition DG

Merger Registry

Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70

B-1000 Brussels

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.,1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of TORCH EXECUTIVE SERVICES LTD. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the Report), I, Frank Torchia, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








*/s/ Frank Torchia*Frank Torchia
Chief Executive and Financial Officer
December 9, 2004
# C_2007211EN.01001503.xml

| 8.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Vion Trading GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-279/07)

(2007/C 211/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vion Trading GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendant:

Question(s) referred

| 1. | Must the limitation period prescribed in the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (1) be applied even if an irregularity was committed or ceased before Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 entered into force? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the limitation period prescribed in the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (1) be applied even if an irregularity was committed or ceased before Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 entered into force?

1

| 2. | Is the limitation period prescribed in that provision applicable in general to administrative measures such as the recovery of export refunds granted as a result of irregularities? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the limitation period prescribed in that provision applicable in general to administrative measures such as the recovery of export refunds granted as a result of irregularities?

If the answers to those questions are in the affirmative:

| 3. | May a longer period pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be applied by a Member State even if such a longer period was already provided for in the law of the Member State before the abovementioned regulation was adopted? May such a longer period be applied even if it was not prescribed in a specific provision for the recovery of export refunds or for administrative measures in general, but resulted from a general rule of the Member State concerned covering all limitation cases not specifically regulated (‘catch-all’ provision)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May a longer period pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be applied by a Member State even if such a longer period was already provided for in the law of the Member State before the abovementioned regulation was adopted? May such a longer period be applied even if it was not prescribed in a specific provision for the recovery of export refunds or for administrative measures in general, but resulted from a general rule of the Member State concerned covering all limitation cases not specifically regulated (‘catch-all’ provision)?

---

(1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2007223EN.01000602.xml

| 22.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/6

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 Freistaat Sachsen v Commission of the European Communities

Freistaat Sachsen

Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-334/07 P)

(2007/C 223/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Kilian Gross, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Freistaat Sachsen

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 Freistaat Sachsen v Commission of the European Communities in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 Freistaat Sachsen v Commission of the European Communities in its entirety;

Freistaat Sachsen

Commission of the European Communities

| — | give final judgment on the matter and dismiss the action as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

give final judgment on the matter and dismiss the action as unfounded;

| — | order the applicant at first instance to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs incurred at first instance in Case T-357/02. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant at first instance to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs incurred at first instance in Case T-357/02.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, the contested judgment infringes Articles 88(2) and (3) EC, the second paragraph of Article 249, Article 254(2) EC, Article 3 et seq. of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and Article 10(1) of the Regulation exempting SMEs, since the Court of First Instance failed to recognise that the examination of the legality of the contested decision (2003/226/EC) (2) was to be carried out solely in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation exempting SMEs (Regulation (EC) No 70/2001) (3).

1

2

3

The Regulation exempting SMEs entered into force before the contested decision was issued and was thus directly applicable. Consequently, it was the only applicable legal framework. According to the Commission, the Court wrongly denies the applicability of the Regulation exempting SMEs since it erroneously assumed that the Regulation exempting SMEs would have to be applied retroactively in the case of the contested decision.

The Commission claims, in the alternative, that the contested judgment also infringes Article 2(2) and Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 because the Court misconceived the criterion of assessment and the requirements of completeness of a notification.

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2003 L 91, p. 13.

2

(3)  OJ 2001 L 10, p. 33.

3

---
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Pot-roasting a less tender cut

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Pot-roasting a less tender cut 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Bureau of Home Economics 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1930-1940 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  176 × 50 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at The University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  A42.7-4-5.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0059 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. VIDAL X NOTAFRAID JR,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 3 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 26 2024

07/26/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0059
A89A2347.

#### LEE v. FULTON CONCRETE COMPANY et al.

(393 SE2d 449)

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff was injured when her vehicle was struck by a truck that was owned by appellee-defendant Fulton Concrete Company and that was being operated by its employee, appellee-defendant George Monseglio. After the collision, appellees’ liability carrier became insolvent. Accordingly, when appellant filed this tort action against appellees, she caused a copy of her complaint to be served on her own uninsured motorist carrier. See OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (1) (D) (iv). Thereafter, appellant settled with her uninsured motorist carrier for less than the policy limits. Appellees then moved for summary judgment on the ground that appellant’s settlement with her uninsured motorist carrier barred her from pursuing her tort claim against them. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees and appellant appeals from that order.

Appellees rely upon former OCGA § 33-36-14 (a), a provision of the Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool Act, which provided as follows: “Any person . . . having a claim against his insurer under any insolvency provision contained in his insurance policy, which claim arises out of the insolvency of a participating insurer, shall be required to exhaust first his rights under the policy; and his rights to recover such claim under this chapter shall be reduced accordingly.” Under appellees’ construction of this former provision, appellant had a claim against her own uninsured motorist carrier arising out of the insolvency of their liability carrier and, insofar as she failed to exhaust her rights against her own uninsured motorist carrier by settling for less than the policy limits, appellant cannot now proceed on her tort claim against them.

We need not decide whether appellant’s apparently good faith settlement with her own uninsured motorist carrier for less than the policy limits does or does not evince a failure to “exhaust” her rights under her own policy as contemplated by former OCGA § 33-36-14 (a). Regardless of the legal effect that appellant’s settlement might *349otherwise have under the Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool Act, that settlement does not provide appellees with a personal defense so as to bar appellant’s pursuit of her tort action against them. See *Bethea v. Forbes,*548 A2d 1215 (Pa. 1988). It follows that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. Appellant’s compliance or non-compliance with former OCGA § 33-36-14 (a) will only become a relevant inquiry if and when she obtains a judgment against appellees.

Decided March 6, 1990

Rehearing denied March 22, 1990

Rehearing dismissed April 12, 1990.

*Robert M. Goldberg,*for appellant.

*Bovis, Kyle & Burch, John C. Bach,*for appellees.

*Judgment reversed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON DC 

United Airlines 

Complainant, 

v. 

Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey (PANYNJ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-13 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above 

referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. 

As the parties are aware, the Director concluded there appears to be a reasonable basis for 

further investigation, and requested additional information from the Respondent. The 

investigation is still on-going. 

Accordingly, an extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete 

consideration of this case. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the 

Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to May 27, 2016. 

Date 

Ac mg Director, Office irport 

Compliance and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 10, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class, postage paid) and to be emailed at the addresses below or personally 

delivered a true copy of the foregoing Order addressed to: 

For Complainant 

RobertS. Span 

Steinbrecher & Span LLP 

1155 F. Street, NW, Suite 1050 

Washington, DC 20004 

rspan steinbrecherspan.~OIJ1 

Marc L. Warren 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

1 001 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

m warrcnallcrowe II. com 

For Respondent 

Carlene V. Mcintyre 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

225 park A venue South 

New York, New York, 10003 

cmcintvrra{panynj .gov 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

fPmtll1kl_ 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00114-CR

LAURA MCCREARY, Appellant

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

On Appeal from County Criminal 

Court No. 5

of Denton County (CR-2019-02989-E) 

July 21, 2022

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell 

 Justice Wade Birdwell